You are here

You Go No Further, Canada

Posted on:19 October 2017

By:thecollective

Anonymous submission to MTL Counter-info

October 11th, 1869: A hundred and forty-eight years ago to this date, Louis Riel led a group of Métis to confront land surveyors sent by the newly confederated Canadian state. The surveyors came to define new property lines as a first step in Canada’s control over the Red River territory. This group of Métis physically stopped their work while Riel informed them, “you go no further.” So began the Red River rebellion, an inspiring moment in the long, ongoing history of Indigenous initiatives to fight against and survive the spread of colonialism and its genocidal violence across the continent.

We are non-Indigenous anarchists who chose to commemorate this important day in the history of anti-colonial resistance by vandalizing the John A. MacDonald monument in Place du Canada, Montreal. We spray painted Ⓐ FUCK 150 DÉCOLONISONS

The year 2017 marks canada’s attempts to celebrate the past 150 years of its existence. These efforts include the state trying to position Indigenous peoples within this distorted narrative of nation-building founded upon stolen land, attempted genocide and assimilation. In the face of this ongoing colonial nightmare we see only one way forward: decolonization and the end of canada.

Long live the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island!
Ni frontière, ni état, ni québec, ni canada!
None are free until we all are free!

Comments

Early on this year you ordered me to bring down Canada entirely, and don't worry I'm still working on it! Still a bit more than two months remaining but be patient, and also don't listen to those critical commenters in the meantime everything will go as planned, General!

*talking to myself* So maybe a few more graffiti here and there, plus a broken window at 2 AM on that gentrified street, then shake shake shake that magic cube, then...

Why are you fucking round with statues, when there's companies out there which are actively involved in plundering indigenous peoples all over the world, imposing costs on them might actually stop them through reputational damage and financial costs (SHAC model)... find who's funding the tarsands and shut them the fuck down, or hey, Shell are still in the Niger Delta and Freeport in West Papua, I bet they have offices or branches or bank accounts in Canada, or they have ties to other companies which do - hell, even the likes of SINOPEC can't be immune to tertiary campaigning, targeting their contractors and partners. But I guess that wouldn't impress your rulers in the "Indigenous" bourgeoisie who are seeking to weaponise your anger (and that of "their own" youths and emarginati) for their own upward mobility and rebranding of "Canada" as THEIR nation-state, or carving their own nation-states out of it.

That is correct... not only disruption or Divest, Desist and Boycott type of campaigns can be significantly effective against industrial interests, but also are enough above-ground to allow the building of relationships outside of the usual stress associated with the necessary security culture, something that petty vandalism is very unlikely to do. If you wanna attack the big money, go where the big money is being channeled or promoted. If you wanna attack the wider politics of a State, there might be better places or ways to do so.

...which ain't saying there is any common or universal measure which makes vandalism less efficient or satisfying than above-ground actions. It always about the context. And big cities provide with such a vast range of exposure of the most sensitive engines of capital (like conferences, conventions, panels, venues, spectacles, etc), that it's such a waste to be focusing on vandalism like some anarchists do... as if there wasn't anything better to do.

I do like the historical overview on the Red River rebellion in this communique, tho. Teaching history through vandalism? Why not!

Idk, Canada has largely tied itself to the American anchor. E.g., when Trump announced tariffs on timber and dairy, the reaction in the Canadian government was basically panic.

Also, keep in mind, Canada is a country with a population of 37 million, and a GDP of $1.6 trillion USD. Compare this to California, with a population of 39 million and a GDP of $2.6 trillion USD. There are sheer numbers here that mean Canada simply cannot play empire without serious assistance from others. Canada may be able to maintain a standard of living other countries can't (a prospect likely to continue as climate change makes more of the country arable while everywhere else on the planet gets fucked), but quantified high standards of living (lol) don't correspond to Leviathan power. If they did, Denmark would be a force to be reckoned with while China would be a laughing stock.

Will obviously not be how Canada moves up but there is more to leviathan then military power. It's more on the economic cultural side of things that I see Canada moving up. I actually think there's a chance that the imperial element of leviathan on the whole may decline and be replaced by different models of control. That's certainly been the trend in modern development. The US might actually be the last conventional military empire. I don't see the empire model being selected by a later capital digital cyberneered epoch. In regards to Canada and California the latter has arguably peaked as opposed to the former. It's also pretty obvious which place will actually benefit more from climate change. Canada's slow but steady growth will likely help it going forward.

What possible economic and cultural superiority could Canada have? Again, we're talking about a country that has over 90% of it's population within 100 miles of the US border. The only things Canada have going for it long term are relative physical isolation, large swaths of land, and a geography that stands to benefit from climate change. While those things are non-trivial benefits, they don't really speak "cultural hegemony" to me. Bollywood is more culturally relevant than all of Canada is. The reason people care about Canada at all right now is that it's the US without being the US. Once the US stops mattering, so does Canada. Again, it will probably continue to be one of the better places to live on earth in terms of poverty etc., but I don't know where it would gain relevancy overall.

I think Canada still sits comfortably in its position as a front of the evolved British Empire, which is now mostly a financial empire not unrelated to Wall Street (as you may know the Bank of Canada does not answer to the Federal Government, who only has a delegate which sit at its board for reporting on what's being decided... so that's a lot of fucking sovereign power over "the people"). And off course there's still a General Governor who has the power to say "fuck off" to the Chamber of Commons whenever the Queen decides, and it did do that twice lately, but hey... just a tad. Or maybe not.

in a real estate market sense. It's the hip neighbourhood where the global superrich probably want to own property, and maybe secure citizenship. While the reality may prove different (no one actually knows shit), there is a lot of reason to think that the north is a solid place to invest, if you're thinking long-term survivability.

The Canadian state is probably not on the up and up. Its prospects are entirely tied up with the prospects of the superstate to the south. On a long-term timescale, we can expect 1 of 3 things:

- balkanization, probably spurred by events taking place in the United States first;
- effective political union with / total subordination to the United States;
- institutional continuity, but with neoliberal harmonization rendering Ottawa more and more irrelevant.

Or there will be a dope-as-fuck revolutionary process in at least several countries at once, which would be cool, and do away with all the nonsense. Would take some elbow grease, though.

By some type of digital age information process. It will either be some type of global state or it will be something like what Neil Stephenson describes in Diamond age with digitally enclosed guilded economies(not all that far fetched). Or maybe there will be a peferential revolution.Blockchain machineology and cryptocurrencies will be the wild cards.

In terms of the US you might be looking at secessional break-offs in the near future. Canada has much more cohesiveness on its side. I do agree that Canada will have a kind of Swiss appeal.

As for revolution becareful what you wish for. I don't want to experience Russia 1921 the word over, then you really are fucked. I'm an agent of insurrection myself.

I'm reminded of the great anthropologist A. David Napier who wrote something to the effect that if you get in a car and drive at full speed half way across the world, things might in actuality be moving very slowly, or not at all. An interesting thought for today, but it should be pointed out that the man never ruled out a good road trip, which could possibly indicate that when you stop and get out of the car, things speed up.

to speak of states as real `things-in-themselves` and talk about `what is going to happen to them`is to support, if not subscribe to, the belief in the secularized theological concepts of colonialism.

the more realistic concerns, as voiced by indigenous anarchists in Canada (including those who hold both US and Canadian passports and who do so for no other reason than to make it easier to cross the border in either direction) are in furthering the undermining of the intellectual premises of colonialism, and its strategic device of 'sovereigntism'.

I am not denying your point - it's fine - but also, have you considered that "state" is just shorthand for some institutions, the people who work in those institutions, and maybe a certain weight of history upon people's present-day consciousnesses

Something will happen to the institutions. Parliament Hill will be rewilded, or turn into a tourist attraction, or be bombed by the U.S. (in a comic book version of the future), or something. Something will happen to your local police department and your nearest border crossing. So that's the Canadian state. I suppose I'm reifying a bit, but who gives a fuck. The "intellectual premises" do not need to be undermined, because they are so evidently bankrupt. When I speak of the Canadian state, I am engaged in non-intellectualism, in vulgarism - that is, just using the common concepts that are available to me. It's not a "realistic concern", I suppose, for me to think about a Services Canada office in Kamloops or an RCMP precinct in Yellowknife, since I've never even been within 1000 clicks of those places, but what-fucking-ever, it's not a realistic concern to think about 100 years from now either, but thinking on large temporal and geographic scales (with the categorical language necessary) is just this civilized and alienated boy's idea of some good clean fun.

The "intellectual premises" do not need to be undermined, because they are so evidently bankrupt.

i would say that 'racism' prevails in this anarchist forum, and it seems to me that 'racism' and 'fascism' and 'colonialism' are alternative signifiers of a common protocol; i.e. they arise by way of a group defining itself as 'special' and 'better' than the rest, and by committing to keep up this sham by repetitive celebrating of themselves, and thus distinguishing themselves from 'others', saying, implicitly 'we are the best' by putting down 'others' and forming 'tribes' on this basis. It's important to strut your stuff in front of others when your tribe-members are present.

when a male who identifies himself with 'the male tribe' is among males, he may brag about how he can exploit women by impressing them with his male powers, so that just as if he were tickling trout, he can then just grab them by the pussy and take what he wants. but then, when he is among women, he will tell them how much he loves, admires and respects women. evidently, he has trashed his authenticity and transparency and even if he, at some level, really does love, admire and respect others who are wearing the female flesh, he has pissed on his own sacred feelings because of his racism.

the man who is called to the scene of an accident and shows up when all the tv crews are covering the rescue of his beloved young son, who came so close to dying and would have died had it not been for the courageous act of a young woman, beautiful, caring, so brave, and he just wants to go over to her and give her an embrace that contains all the love in his heart in front of all his friends and the public, this 'pig' in a full 'pig's uniform', ... will he be able to do it 'authentically', 'transparently'?

how important are intellectual premises?

what about the forum participant who holds unpopular views and is held in much the same regard as 'pigs'. if he says something that 'makes sense', can one acknowledge it publicly, authentically, transparently? can we still laugh at bill cosby's jokes from out of our own sense of authenticity and transparency? or does 'political correctness' get in the way?

it is easy for emile to compliment anyone in this forum on the quality of their comment. that's the freedom that comes with not joining any club. i wouldn't like being a member of a club that prevented me from complimenting or criticizing anyone's comments and/or actions; i.e. bill cosby's, a beautiful, caring 'pig's', a sir einzige's, a shadowsmoke's,... coming from my own authenticity and transparency which equally allows me also to critique the comments of whomever. pity the poor bastard who, in an audience of his own tribesmen, feels obliged to read every comment/action of those who his tribe is alienating, searching for an angle to 'undermine' or 'belittle' him. such a person can enjoy 'solidarity' and 'mutual support' from his own 'club', but at the price of his own authenticity and transparency.

when i was speaking about 'undermining the intellectual premises of colonialism [racism]', that's what i was referring to; i.e. undermining the intellectual premise that there is merit in setting a group up as an 'authority' on 'the truth'; i.e. nietzsche would call it 'undermining the intellectual premise there is an objective truth that a group can be in possession of'.

know what i mean?

if you are a member of a group that claims to be in possession of the objective truth, then your mere commitment to membership in the group gives you, too, access to the supreme truth along with the group's supporting backup (often not much of tangible value beyond head-nodding with a chorus of 'uh huh's and 'you betcha's'). with that backing, even if you don't have a clue about 'celestial versus terrestrial forcing', you have all the credentials you need, to launch attacks on AGW deniers and to ridicule them for their stupidity.

i think you'll find that those 'intellectual premises' of racism aka 'colonialism' not only pervade turtle island and the colonizing tribes of canada and the united states but they pervade this discussion forum. absurd as it seems, it is an unwritten rule to suspend criticism of this implicit intellectual premise;

“They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.” – R.D. Laing

Shakespeare's lines mock the absurdity of European society. Wikipedia notes that he tapped into a satirical attack on societal traditions by Erasmus;

"In his work The Praise of Folly, first printed in 1511, Renaissance humanist Erasmus asks, "For what else is the life of man but a kind of play in which men in various costumes perform until the director motions them off the stage.""

Are you suggesting that we should keep up the tradition of living absurdly?

Don't forget, Nietzsche pegs the problem as going back to Plato and Aristotle when 'we' (Western society) began to put reason into an unnatural primacy over intuition in 400 BCE. Shakespeare is giving us a progress report in 1603, and we haven't budged from this silliness in 2017.

'all the worlds a stage' gives a kind of pre-Darwin, Darwinian ontological progress profile of the life of a European man.

And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. .... " -- Shakespeare, 'As You Like It'

Western normality in all its ugly unnaturalness.

Shakespeare's satirical attack is not a call to us to stay faithful to dysfunctional tradition.

Socio-linguistic behavioral software programs to be exact. The behavioral feedback loops are very real even if the state has no physical concrete hardware based existence. Ending the state is essentially individual(mostly) and collective deprogramming.

i was impressed by ariel and aragorn's discussion on anarchism in podcast 34, particularly ariel's.

anarchism for her was becoming less something definable that one keeps searching for and becomes instead a structure for living one's life, ... characterized by 'authenticity' and 'transparency'.

that is what i would call 'freedom'.

if one holds an american passport (ditto for canadian and all passports) and is passed a microphone so you can share what is going on with you and your worldview, if you feel zero pull on you to get in a 'God bless America' or a 'God bless females' or a 'God bless blacks' or a 'God bless queers', ... then you may have opted out of the main institution of Western civilization; i.e. 'racism', the defining of things on the basis of their common properties, rather than understanding them by way of the web of relations they are situationally included in.

nationalism is racism.

defining anarchism on the basis of the common properties of an anarchist is racism.

having to be loyal to one or more racist definitions of who you are undermines your authenticity and transparency.

if 'anarchism' is living one's life authentically and transparently, then defining who you are and remaining loyal to a definition of yourself is a contradiction.

as marx said, 'I refuse to join any club that would accept me as a member' (groucho, that is).

'freedom' for an 'anarchist' is never having to speak and perform like a robot whose pulled string triggers repetition of narratives exemplifying one's defining properties and beliefs, an unnatural, inauthentic and non-transparent structure for living that puts rational purpose driven 'genesis' of actions and deeds into an unnatural primacy over 'epigenetic inductive actualization'.

when one is included in a continually evolving-n-the-now relational dynamic, the unfolding situation must dance the lead with rational purpose based on prior knowledge following in a support role.in nietzschean terms,.the intoxicating, beyond-depiction music of the dionysian dancer inspires the visual space dreams of the apollonian. but there are so many notes, things-in-themselves, fragments of music, dead bees in an abandoned hive, that must add back up to that music, or so the analytically-gifted apollonian scientist claims, ... but can the harmonies we so crave really be 'codified'? will the spirit come back in to re-occupy the machine when we do the apollonian reassembly? when we try to operationalize the 'knowledge' of how play by the notes, as is the method of science, we construct a decoy home that we hope the spirit of music will fly back in and occupy.